Freedom of speech was created when there were many distributed newspapers. If one newspaper decided not to publish your piece, you could go to another. There was not a cabal of newspapers that controlled 99% of information distribution, like do Twitter, Facebook, and Google. This is not something the founders ever could have foreseen.
For all intents and purposes, freedom of speech has flatlined in America. What will bring it back?
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with newspapers or news, and never has done.
It only protects you from government, nothing else.
There are legitimate concerns regarding monopolistic behaviour of large digital gatekeepers. But we don’t solve that by deciding to restrict their speech (which is what forced speech would be). You solve it by either making them utilities or breaking them up to create more competition.
I don’t think there’s much difference. If you argue that companies like Stripe and Twitter should “uphold freedom of speech”, then you’re restricting their freedom of speech.
My right to speak doesn’t override you’re right to ignore me, or refuse to transmit my message.
Now there’s a knotty issue with entities like Facebook and Twitter becoming the primary ways people communicate with large audiences, but people managed before Facebook and Twitter, so they can manage again.
Or the alternative is that we say Facebook and Twitter don’t deserve to have their own speech protected. At which point someone is picking a choosing who deserves free speech.
According to an article posted on hn yesterday, even this is not quite correct (the first amendment can be interpreted to affect state laws, not just federal, and even civil litigation, apparently)
You can speak all you want in public spaces, on your own property (whether that be your home, your blog or your mastodon instance) mostly without limit.
But Facebook, Twitter, Google, HN or any other private organization is under no obligation to host or amplify your speech.
The government can't censor you and you may speak your mind in public spaces. You may also do so in private spaces, with the permission of the owners of those spaces.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that certain private actors are required to allow your speech. That's not true. They are responsible only to their shareholders and to a lesser extent, their customers -- and in this case their customers are advertisers and not you. You are the product being sold.
If you don't think that's right or fair, then don't interact with those private actors. If enough people chose not to deal with them, they would lose their power and influence.
I voted with my feet years ago. If you haven't, then you're part of the problem and not the solution.
> Facebook, Twitter, et al are not public squares.
You can speak all you want in public spaces, on your own property (whether that be your home, your blog or your mastodon instance) mostly without limit.
I can't find it at the moment but there was recently a court case where a judge ruled that the constitutional right to Assembly was not infringed by pandemic restrictions (It is illegal in several US jurisdictions to assemble with more than N people in a private space) because people could freely assemble on online platforms like Facebook and Twitter. If the digital public square does not allow for free assembly, and the government forbids you from assembling in a physical public space, then it seems plausible to me that we have constructively eliminated certain constitutional rights.
Claiming they are not public squares is correct and says very little.
When capitalism revealed its ability to create abusive monopolies, we created new laws to mitigate those harms.
When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena.
>When the whole worlds discourse flows through a few centralized social media companies, as a society we are free to imagine new legal concepts and regulations to deal with the unforeseeable consequences of these new phenomena.
Where did I say that wasn't appropriate?
I strongly believe that those big social media companies not only have too much power and influence, but that their business models are exploitative and morally repugnant.
Which is why I don't use them. At all.
In fact, I detailed[0] how I thought this issue should be dealt with the other day.
Freedom of speech as laid out in the 1st amendment protects individuals from being arrested or censored by the government for speech. It does not protect individuals who violate the TOS of a private company, nor does it provide blanket protection in all cases of speech. Inciting violence and making false statements of fact are not protected forms of speech under US law[0]
You don't have an inherent right to a megaphone. Freedom of speech means you don't get in trouble from the government for saying things, not that you have the right to broadcast your message.
If you can you will have the means?
Lmao sounds like you believe popular support is an indicator of correctness and that is very very wrong you should read about Galileo pal
Lmao, pal to you too. Galileo succeeded, we heard his theory and eventually found it more correct than the previous one. And he managed that without Twitter, Youtube or Parler.
Yeah but the suffering that had to take place in order for that to happen was erroneous we should strive to avoid that and not licking Bezzos and ZUckerberg boots is part of a society where Galileos have to avoid trials
So you go on about Lmao pals and licking boots. What it is that you actually propose? That someone who has a publishing platform, they're forced to propagate your message, no matter what it is? And if they refuse? Fines? Jailtime? Pitchforks, torches, white hoods, noose?
> It only protects you from government, nothing else.
As I had mentioned in another comment a few days ago, it stands to reason that were the government to outsource the censorship to private entities (like Orban is now doing in Hungary, where almost all the media is in his pockets) than everything would be technically legal, even though it would definitely be against the spirit of the law.
As a matter of the fact the US right does seem to say that the same thing is happening right now, i.e. that the US mainstream media is "in the pockets of the left" hence the censorship.
"For all intents and purposes, freedom of speech has flatlined in America."
No - 'Freedom of Speech' is at an all time high.
The internet gives every single person a giant soap box to stand on.
You can communicate, in public, with anyone in the world.
25 years ago, you had no voice.
Now, everyone can be a 'journalist' or 'agitator' or whatever.
The level of open communication possible today was unthinkable 25 years ago.
25 years ago most people didn't have access to 'most news'. The NYT maybe was accessible by the elite in most towns, but the LA times was not. Now it's all available to everyone.
That is very much the case and the policies of facebook and twitter have changed a lot, evne google removed the "dont be evil" from their ethics. People did much worse int he early days of facebook and twitter and facebook and twitter couldnt do anything because their guidelines werent made to censor things like that, let alone to particularly target a party as they do now.
For all intents and purposes, freedom of speech has flatlined in America. What will bring it back?